Help me with Hackintosh, please.

[Acden]

After years with problems on MacPro 3.1, MacBook pro on i7!!!!!
Finally, some days ago, I decided to try to make Hacintosh (((

(I love my Mac Pro tower... I like how it looks like on my desktop, I like to show my clients original Mac Pro server )))
And it was difficult decision...


It will be my main desktop for everyday use (surely, I will use Web-browsers, e-mail in time it Rendering video).
The most difficult question was about CPU. I chose from: Core i7 4790K, 6700, 4770, 4790, i7-5775C, i7-7700). Because I don't know what is enough for me?

I decided no to buy the latest CPU (not Sky-lake), because it is unknown how it will work in OS X, because there is no native support at the moment...

I was centered on 4770K processor, as heard a lot about it's power etc. But then found i7-6700 with very adequate price! (new in box about $250!!!). And it won my puzzle.

I have chosen Intel Core i7-6700. I would like to explain why not 6700K. Because it's TDP is much more. I'm not sure that I need more than 3,4 GHZ. Surely, 4Ghz is better but it requires better cooling (by the way, I buy best cooler anyway) and it could be more noisy!

I want silent desktop, like my Mac Pro 3.1. And I don't want to pay x2 bills for my K processor with TDPx2 than without K (or, did I mistaken about its more electicity requirements?).


And at this moment my question is about motherboard. How to chose motherboard with minumum problems in hackintosh? I mean minimum kextst or whatever else, required before installation. I need MB with at least 3 PCIe, it is good if it has 8SATA, instead of 6 sata-ports, it would be great if it has 10GBe or 2xLAN.

It is also good if it would be ASUS or GB motherboard compatible with their Thunderbolt adapters (As I already have Thunderbolt Display), but it is not the must.

My first point is: GIGABYTE-GA-Z170X UltraGaming. But I'm interested, what better I could buy with no compatibility(kext etc) problems?


As I know, there were less problems with Gigabyte mb some years ago. Now I see a lot of people uses ASUS (with the name like Formula or Similar).

I have Sapphire 7950 and Nvidia GTX 760 cards to use in my new system. Also, a lot of HDDs and SSD.

Oh, sorry. This desktop mainly is for editing and exporting in Adobe Premiere and FCPX!!! I want a good machine to use them without lags for Full HD video, weddings, concerts editings, mostly multicam edits with not a lot of effects!

(My xeon 5462 2.8 Ghz with 6GB is very slow on both editing programms. And some people said it not worth upgrading)

(Will update the post, after remember something, so look it)

 

[Synchro3]

Here you go: https://www.tonymacx86.com/buyersguide/february/2017

 

[Acden]

Yes, I know about this link. And already been there. But there were only 2 motherboards and it didn't say that no problems at all... Maybe it needed a lot of kexts, I need consultation that everything works.

Also, I know this link and I want to understand what motherboards can be used also? Maybe it is connected with chipset or whatelse...

 

[phrehdd]

Yes, I know about this link. And already been there. But there were only 2 motherboards and it didn't say that no problems at all... Maybe it needed a lot of kexts, I need consultation that everything works.

Also, I know this link and I want to understand what motherboards can be used also? Maybe it is connected with chipset or whatelse...

Why don't you go to that link or the other main site and put out a request for some help to be answered privately. Perhaps arrange to pay a person to walk you through or install the OS for you (should ask for documentation of all items used to make the OS run).

 

[esatamacmodular]

if tony recommends a certain mobo then i'd go with what tony recommends. i know for a fact there are more than two listed... maybe you are only looking in one category. spend some time getting to know tony's site as it's community is your best friend on these matters.

 

[Ph.D.]

You need to have realistic expectations about the chances that things will work adequately well for you.

I may be attacked for saying this, but for your own sake do not believe claims of out-of-the-box "golden builds." Although the base system may work relatively easily, you almost certainly will have problems with the details, perhaps including sleep, sound, or some fancier OS functions. Unless you are knowledgeable and resourceful they will require help to fix, and some may never work properly.

You will also have to deal with the same problems that cMP's have to with regard to graphics: Few of the best contemporary options will work.

I went through this process myself some time ago, using an "approved" motherboard, etc. This did not go smoothly at all. In the end, I chose not to fight it, since the main software I really needed to run worked with my backup plan for the hardware: Linux. This did work virtually perfectly "out of the box," and it also allowed me to use a modern graphics card (a GTX-1070), also without problems.

I'm not saying don't do it (legal issues aside), but you have to be realistic. Your investment may prove more frustrating and difficult than expected, and you need to think about how that would be managed.

 

[Draeconis]

I decided no to buy the latest CPU (not Sky-lake), because it is unknown how it will work in OS X, because there is no native support at the moment...

If you are talking about Kabylake, good call.

If you're talking about Skylake, Apple released iMacs in 2015 with Skylake chips so.. I'm not sure where you're getting that one from.

 

[Mikael H]

If you are talking about Kabylake, good call.

I decided no to buy the latest CPU (not Sky-lake), because it is unknown how it will work in OS X, because there is no native support at the moment...

This sounds like a misinterpretation, unless I'm badly misinformed.
The features introduced in Kaby Lake may be unsupported by current macOS versions, but all features of the CPU up until and including Skylake functionality should be supported.

What this means, is that a Kaby Lake CPU should work exactly like a somewhat higher clocked version of the corresponding Skylake CPU until Apple release support for the Kaby Lake features, at which point these features get unlocked. By buying a previous-gen CPU, you might save some money up-front, but you miss out on the capability of a current-gen CPU with no way to compensate down the line except by upgrading the processor which will likely cost you a bit more in total now.

 

[pastrychef]

You need to have realistic expectations about the chances that things will work adequately well for you.

I may be attacked for saying this, but for your own sake do not believe claims of out-of-the-box "golden builds." Although the base system may work relatively easily, you almost certainly will have problems with the details, perhaps including sleep, sound, or some fancier OS functions. Unless you are knowledgeable and resourceful they will require help to fix, and some may never work properly.

This is true. Sleep may be the most common problem that I see people encounter. The other issues are fairly easy to overcome now, particularly if one goes for a Skylake/Z170 system. (I'm speaking of desktop systems, laptops are an entirely different beast and require considerably more work.)

You will also have to deal with the same problems that cMP's have to with regard to graphics: Few of the best contemporary options will work.

Again, absolutely true. GPU options are pretty much the same. One advantage is that when using an Nvidia card, you won't have to worry about boot screens on a hackintosh. Also, there is always the option of using IGP on a hack (albeit at the expense of sleep if using Skylake's HD 530).

I went through this process myself some time ago, using an "approved" motherboard, etc. This did not go smoothly at all. In the end, I chose not to fight it, since the main software I really needed to run worked with my backup plan for the hardware: Linux. This did work virtually perfectly "out of the box," and it also allowed me to use a modern graphics card (a GTX-1070), also without problems.

I'm not saying don't do it (legal issues aside), but you have to be realistic. Your investment may prove more frustrating and difficult than expected, and you need to think about how that would be managed.

I don't know when you attempted, but from my experience, the entire process is quite refined now. Still, it's important to read through some of the Golden Build and Users Build threads to see what type of issues people had to overcome.

I guess I got lucky... On my first build, I had all functions including sleep working on day one. The only thing that took a little time to iron out perfectly was Messages/Continuity/Handoff.

 

[Draeconis]

This sounds like a misinterpretation, unless I'm badly misinformed.
The features introduced in Kaby Lake may be unsupported by current macOS versions, but all features of the CPU up until and including Skylake functionality should be supported.

Assuming that Kabylake and Skylake have compatible CPU microcode, then in theory they'll be supported. But if they don't, macOS won't be bootable until Apple release a version of macOS for released Kabylake hardware.

 

[pastrychef]

There are already quite a few people running macOS on Kaby Lake. It's not quite flawless yet, but it's getting close very quickly.

 

[Fl0r!an]

Kaby Lake doesn't need much more than a faked CPU ID to boot macOS. In the end it's the same thing as Skylake, just with a different name and +200Mhz clock speed, so not too surprising.

 

[Mikael H]

Assuming that Kabylake and Skylake have compatible CPU microcode, then in theory they'll be supported. But if they don't, macOS won't be bootable until Apple release a version of macOS for released Kabylake hardware.

Incompatible microcode at that level would mean that Kaby Lake was no longer an x86 compatible CPU, wouldn't it? This is clearly not the case. Adding features while staying compatible with older software is pretty much what has allowed Intel to stay on top as they've done in the x86 field.

For us who run VMware products, this question has had a very concrete benefit for quite some time, through the vSphere "VMware EVC" cluster option: By only presenting CPU features up to a certain generation to the virtual machines, it's possible to allow live migration of VMs across ESXi hosts running different generations of CPUs, using vMotion.

 

[Ph.D.]

I don't know when you attempted, but from my experience, the entire process is quite refined now.

It was June of last year. At that time, Skylake builds were reaching some stability. My system was an I7-6700k and a popular Z170 board from the recommended list. The on-chip graphics experience was miserable, and neither my original Apple 5770 (why!?) nor 280X seemed to work quite right either. I also lost half my memory: I had two 16 GB sticks and they showed up as half that size. I don't especially remember the other problems I had, but I think sleep and sound were two of them.

I didn't try hard to fix the problems, actually, since I wasn't very hot to get OS-X up vs. my "backup" plan for Linux. To be honest, I felt kind of dirty about the whole "hackintosh" idea vs. a totally legit install.

I've recently thought that I might try again to see if things have improved, but the idea of giving up my GTX-1070 does spoil things (heck, I might upgrade to a 1080ti once those are out), and I enjoy tinkering with Linux anyway. It's an on-going experiment to see if I can leave Apple behind more and more completely. If Apple ever does come out with a nnMP (hopefully with more openness about its long-term commitment), I'd absolutely prefer that over a hack anyway.

 

[William_si]

I'm not saying don't do it (legal issues aside),

There is no legality issues.

OSX has no price since some versions, thus you cannot pirate it - kexts are based on reverse engineering but not stolen code thus also legal.

 

[Ph.D.]

There is no legality issues.

OSX has no price since some versions, thus you cannot pirate it - kexts are based on reverse engineering but not stolen code thus also legal.

There absolutely are legal issues. You don't own and cannot use it as you please just because it is seemingly "without cost." Indeed, you don't own it at all - Apple does. You may or may not have a license to use it and must satisfy and adhere to its provisions to legally use it. One of those provisions is that it is to be used only on an approved product.

A hackintosh violates the license on OS-X/Mac-OS, period.

 

[William_si]

Sure. The EU invalid EULA (same as most of Microsofts). This is the jailbreak+modify case and it went through all instances by now.

Hackintosh is perfectly legal for personal usage in the EU.

What you cite are civil issues also, not criminal, which generally are impossible to press here against private persons.

We have commercial hackintosh sellers in biz since 10y+ never being bothered by any police or Apple.

 

[Ph.D.]

Dream on. Or at least just say the obvious: "here in Croatia we pirate anything we want without worry, 'cause, you know, whatever!" The hacking world may be your oyster there, but it's certainly not the same everywhere.

Apple tolerates hacks since, I presume, (a) it's a minor problem thus far, (b) it doesn't want to stoop to acting like the RIAA and MPAA thugs and go after individuals, and (c) soon it will have some sort of "secure enclave" device, or total code encryption, in place that will put a stop to it forever.

 

[pastrychef]

It was June of last year. At that time, Skylake builds were reaching some stability. My system was an I7-6700k and a popular Z170 board from the recommended list. The on-chip graphics experience was miserable, and neither my original Apple 5770 (why!?) nor 280X seemed to work quite right either. I also lost half my memory: I had two 16 GB sticks and they showed up as half that size. I don't especially remember the other problems I had, but I think sleep and sound were two of them.

I didn't try hard to fix the problems, actually, since I wasn't very hot to get OS-X up vs. my "backup" plan for Linux. To be honest, I felt kind of dirty about the whole "hackintosh" idea vs. a totally legit install.

I've recently thought that I might try again to see if things have improved, but the idea of giving up my GTX-1070 does spoil things (heck, I might upgrade to a 1080ti once those are out), and I enjoy tinkering with Linux anyway. It's an on-going experiment to see if I can leave Apple behind more and more completely. If Apple ever does come out with a nnMP (hopefully with more openness about its long-term commitment), I'd absolutely prefer that over a hack anyway.

Ah... I see... I don't have any experience with trying to get a hack going with an AMD video card. It might be a bit more than trying to do it with an Nvidia card...

Using the IGP HD 530, isn't hard. At least it wasn't when I tried... As I stated earlier, the only issue with the HD 530 is that sleep doesn't work if you use it.

The memory issue can be solved in Clover now.

 

[Ph.D.]

Ah... I see... I don't have any experience with trying to get a hack going with an AMD video card. It might be a bit more than trying to do it with an Nvidia card...

Using the IGP HD 530, isn't hard. At least it wasn't when I tried... As I stated earlier, the only issue with the HD 530 is that sleep doesn't work if you use it.

The memory issue can be solved in Clover now.

The HD 530 worked, it's just pretty slow. Interesting to know it may have been the cause of some sleep problems. An expert had cautioned me that the 280X may also be a common source of sleep issues. It's nice to hear the memory problem was solved.

Maybe I'll try again one day to see how the setups have improved, but I'd really prefer it if Apple finally provided a decent desktop update.

 

[Fl0r!an]

AMD GPUs are not recommended at the moment for various reasons (one of them are sleep issues).

 

[JoelTheSuperior]

Dream on. Or at least just say the obvious: "here in Croatia we pirate anything we want without worry, 'cause, you know, whatever!" The hacking world may be your oyster there, but it's certainly not the same everywhere.

Apple tolerates hacks since, I presume, (a) it's a minor problem thus far, (b) it doesn't want to stoop to acting like the RIAA and MPAA thugs and go after individuals, and (c) soon it will have some sort of "secure enclave" device, or total code encryption, in place that will put a stop to it forever.

In fairness the EULA likely is unenforceable in the EU. We've yet to see a test case and like you've stated I suspect Apple quite frankly doesn't care. More people using their OS means more people using their app store and giving them money, and further down the line more people who may consider buying a legitimate Mac at some point.

Unfortunately they seem to not be all that fussed that the reason that many people are running hackintoshes lately is because Apple doesn't offer hardware that they want.

 

[Draeconis]

Incompatible microcode at that level would mean that Kaby Lake was no longer an x86 compatible CPU, wouldn't it? This is clearly not the case. Adding features while staying compatible with older software is pretty much what has allowed Intel to stay on top as they've done in the x86 field.

Unless I am mistaken, macOS has to have knowledge of the CPU microcode in its kernel to be compatible. For example, macOS works with the Intel Xeon W3680 sold with a model of the MacPro5,1, but because macOS has the microcode which was shared across this product line, my W3670 also works.

Before Skylake iMacs were released, macOS had no support for Skylake, and hackintoshes build using previous versions of OS X would either not run, or would, but would feature extremely poor performance.

Since others have chimed in that some already have Kabylake hackintoshes up and running, it would appear that these processes are similar this time around, negating this issue.

 

[Ph.D.]

Unfortunately they seem to not be all that fussed that the reason that many people are running hackintoshes lately is because Apple doesn't offer hardware that they want.

Yes, I forgot one more ominous reason that Apple may not care about hacks: That it is deprecating the Mac to oblivion as fast as it can anyway.

I'm not a defender of abusive EULAs or anti-consumer legislation like the DMCA. I just think it's careless and incorrect to spread ill-informed interpretations of what's legal (it's yours because it's "free," etc.). People in the U.S., at least, are indeed violating Apple's license terms when they build a hack. And as far as the "civil" vs. "criminal" distinction, and even the territorial distinctions go, the U.S. for one has patience and a very long arm when it wants to set an example. Kim Dotcom comes to mind. And, acting at the behest of large business interests, it is strong-arming the E.U., etc., to adopt similar legislation.

Would Apple or the U.S. go after individuals building hacks? Probably not. Would they go after businesses selling what are in effect Apple clones? Absolutely, and they have indeed done so. How about people and web sites providing access to software to facilitate hacks? Hmm, it's not inconceivable, eventually, if it became a big enough problem.

First rule of Hack Club is don't talk about Hack Club? The hackintosh culture is perhaps approaching that point. It's all over youtube, etc., people are getting flagrantly cocky about it, and it's not like Apple can continue to pretend it doesn't notice all that much longer.

 

[JoelTheSuperior]

Yes, I forgot one more ominous reason that Apple may not care about hacks: That it is deprecating the Mac to oblivion as fast as it can anyway.

That's an interesting point - it's certainly conceivable that Apple merely don't see hackintoshes as much of a threat, as the Mac makes up a relatively tiny portion of their revenue to begin with.

I'm not a defender of abusive EULAs or anti-consumer legislation like the DMCA. I just think it's careless and incorrect to spread ill-informed interpretations of what's legal (it's yours because it's "free," etc.). People in the U.S., at least, are indeed violating Apple's license terms when they build a hack. And as far as the "civil" vs. "criminal" distinction, and even the territorial distinctions go, the U.S. for one has patience and a very long arm when it wants to set an example. Kim Dotcom comes to mind. And, acting at the behest of large business interests, it is strong-arming the E.U., etc., to adopt similar legislation.

Oh certainly - in fact I can think of examples of EU law which have worked in similar ways. VATMOSS comes to mind - i.e. you must pay EU sales tax if you sell to individuals in the EU even if your company is outside of the EU. Is it enforceable? Sort of.

There's definitely a very real chance of copyright law changing in the EU to better suit corporate interests in the United States, particularly in the UK which is probably leaving the EU - expect TTIP but a few orders of magnitude worse.

I think the moral question regarding hackintoshes is an interesting one. Truth be told if I couldn't run macOS one day on my desktop for whatever reason I'd almost certainly switch to Windows at this point, but that definitely wasn't true even just a few years ago. That said, I don't think that's really a justification for piracy, though I do own more than my fair share of Macs so if Apple would like to give me a break that'd be lovely.

Would Apple or the U.S. go after individuals building hacks? Probably not. Would they go after businesses selling what are in effect Apple clones? Absolutely, and they have indeed done so. How about people and web sites providing access to software to facilitate hacks? Hmm, it's not inconceivable, eventually, if it became a big enough problem.

Oh definitely - in fact I think even if a company was selling them publicly enough in the EU for Apple to care, they'd quickly change their tune and send lawyers round. Regarding TonyMac, I think to an extent they likely consider it not worth the trouble, especially since hackintoshers likely constitute a small enough portion of the market that wouldn't consider buying a Mac anyway - the tinkerers.

First rule of Hack Club is don't talk about Hack Club? The hackintosh culture is perhaps approaching that point. It's all over youtube, etc., people are getting flagrantly cocky about it, and it's not like Apple can continue to pretend it doesn't notice all that much longer.

Very likely - I've noticed particularly on forums such as Gearslutz (i.e. not necessarily computer-focused communities) that discussions of hackintoshes are becoming more frequent. Many people are continuing to feel that Apple aren't interested in them or making a machine that suits them, and as such are looking at alternatives, even if they're perhaps not willing to ditch macOS just yet (though admittedly I'm certainly considering such an option).

Though I do wonder if Apple really cares all that much. Truth be told I think if they were in a position to do so they probably wouldn't be too opposed to killing off the Mac, or at least the desktop side of things. If hackintoshing continues to largely center around desktops and not laptops I'm not convinced they'd actually be that bothered.

I think there's a very real chance that the iMac could end up on the chopping block at some point, if not the Mac Mini. The focus on Apple's website is clearly on their laptops.